TiU Radio 11th Nov 09 Guest John Kaminski (mp3)

[Ognir]

TiU Radio
http://www.theinfounderground.com
Recorded 11th Nov 09
Hosted by Ognir

Guest John Kaminski

http://www.theinfounderground.com/archi ... minski.mp3

The Protocols
No Planers / TV Fakery
911
Jewish Media Control

The BANKERS

Enjoy

[Ognir]

Fun hour
Back to basics
Protocols :lol:

[mgt23]

excellent guest although i add the criticism that we should always spend a portion of our time on survival(PLAN B) and the rest on changing things locally as he says.
be prepared to meet these guys tho
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disp ... er/2973544
as par my point with DBS the other day.....

[MikeWB]

No planers... I have an issue with his analysis.

1) No replacement logs - that can be explained by FBI taking the possession of all of the records and putting them under a lock. Reasons for that is the standard evidence collection procedure for building the case against the perpetrators. I don't buy his argument that this somehow explains or gives credence to no planers.

2) Rivero & Pentagon - I don't know what hit the Pentagon but the number of eyewitnesses who saw the plane bank over the Potomac river is quite high. Yes, the plane did make some heavy maneuvers but that can be explained with automated/remote control unit that guided the pane into Pentagon. That's a lot more plausible than saying that a missile hit it. The amount of evidence that we have that implicates a remote control unit is quite high and a lot more interesting than saying that a missile hit Pentagon. When something of the high speed hits a very hard target, things tend to get "vaporized". Don't forget, that portion of Pentagon was reinforced prior to the attack and when that plane hit it, a lot of stuff got destructed.

3) "Planes don't hit buildings like that" - that shows that these people don't know much about physics.  First of all, WTC's "skin" was mostly glass with steel support beams and most of the steel was INSIDE of the building. So when you see a plane penetrate like that, it's in perfect agreement of how a building like WTC would behave when struck with a plane. Second, a plane is just a thin can of aluminum filled with fuel.

Think of it this way. Take a can of soda or beer. Imagine if you scaled it proportionally so that the diameter of the can is the same as the diameter of the plane. Now, the thickness of the scaled up can's shell is SMALLER than the actual thickness of the plane's aluminum shell. So to claim that  plane  made of "thin" shell wouldn't just disappear into a building made of glass is silly.

Finally, take a look what happens when a high speed object hits a car (and then think about my points 2) and 3) ):

[youtube:6oqxsnos]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ[/youtube]6oqxsnos]

NOTHING is left. It all vaporizes including the engine.

Questions to no planers:

1) A few people did see 1st plane hit WTC but a lot more of people saw plane 2 hit the WTC. If those were not planes, what did all these people see?

2) If hologram tech is real, where are its cousins in the consumer world? If you claim that there's a powerful laser out there... OK... we can all buy a small laser for $3 and it's possible that it could be scaled up so it can take down a building.  But, show me the $1000 hologram machine that could be scaled up so 1000s of people are fooled! Yes, I have seen small "hologram-like" devices that Japanese have made but those require a huge base that projects them and they need to be in dark for you to see them and frankly, they all look like shit and are not convincing at all.

So in short, no planers are mostly people who are delusional, nutty, science illiterate or just plain paid to say the nonsense they're saying.

[Rockclimber]

Good analysis Mike. I can't add much other than I thought we were past the what and how and should keep asking who.

No planers is a distraction.

Kaminski is a no planer now? Yikes